Federal judges' association calls emergency meeting after DOJ intervenes in case of Trump ally Roger

That is a hilariously hypocritical thing for a trump supporter to say

 

In the eyes of the law, it's the individual he threatened. Regardless of whether or not that individual felt threatened.

 

Having your lying eyes get the OK by other agencies makes it perfectly swell in your view??? Even if one of the supporting agencies was headed by an Obama sycophant and a former communist? The web we weave when.........

The FBI's investigation into Russian influence (not to be confused with their treasonous surreptitious investigation into Trump and his campaign) went along without a hitch after Comey was fired. Besides, Mueller was not assigned to investigate Russian interference.

 

Mueller was charged with investigating the Russian interference into the 2016 election and the possibility of a conspiracy between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. He was also charged with investigating the possible obstruction of justice by the President in attempting to halt the Russian investigation. Mueller indicted 13 Russians and 3 Russian companies involved in both the hacking of the DNC, as well as other pro-Trump illegal activities.

Surely you aren't trying to argue that the Russians didn't hack the DNC computers or that Mueller's team didn't indict them for such, are you?

 

No, the law requires the alleged victim to feel threatened....

 

what other pro-trump illegal activities?

 

Is that a yes or a no?

 

Stone's case involved the government's belief that he was the Trump's go-between with the Russians, Julian Assange, and the campaign. And, although he was not indicted for that as such, he was indicted on related perjury, obstruction of justice and witness intimidation charges and found guilty on all charges.
Coincidentally, Julian Assange comes up for a court hearing next week in England, where is in jail and fighting extradition to the United States on unrelated charges. His attorney has just announced that part of his defense against extradition to the U.S. will relate to his testimony regarding a visit with him, at the Ecuadorian Embassy, in London, by former U.S. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, which Assange will claim was for the purpose of conveying a Trump promise of a pardon for Assange on the U.S. charges in return for his testimony that the Russians had nothing to do with the DNC hacked e-mails passed onto Wikileaks for distribution.

 

No it doesn't. I've posted the law itself a few times in this thread as well as the SCOTUS view on it. The same as domestic violence situations where police can charge even if the victim does not wish to.

 

I've seen less White House influence under Trump then the prior admin....the one that publicly concluded no crime was committed during the active investigation of Clinton, the one that publicly committed on DOJ investigations in Missouri, and Florida.....but beyond the DOJ, is open and hostile, and unprecedented assault on the entire Federal Judicial Branch, by attacking the SCOTUS in the State of the Union was unreal....and beyond anything we have seen before, or sense

 

So it wasn't Stone after all! Mueller's team's theory was completely wrong! It
s amazing how Dana slipped right through the fingers of the crack shot investigators on the Mueller team

Stone should be pardoned then for dealing with this harassment.

 

huh? I am asking what other pro-trump illegal activties....who was convicted and of what?

 

Sure they can charge.....the issue is convicting. If the witness says I was never threatened....or it wasn't an unwanted touching...you don't have either.

I could say something to you, a person I don't know, and you might feel threatened, but Billy up the hall from my office, who I see daily and work with daily, knows it to be a joke, and isn't threatened. One might be a crime, one absolutely isn't

 

Øbama exonerated Hillary in April 2016 while she was still under investigation.

I'm sure we can find all the outrage by the MSM, the Dims and their voters over that. No, probably not.

 

Rosenstein's appointment letter used the phrase Russian government interference in the 2016 election as a general introduction. Mueller's specific charge and authorization was to investigate "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump. By the Special Prosecutor statute a special prosecutor must be given an explicit and specific matter to investigate; what Comey testified about with the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017 does not cut it. Mueller was not charged or authorized to investigate generic obstruction of justice even though that became the bulk of his report.

I think it is likely that Russia did hack the DNC and other computers though at least in the case of the DNC it was not proven, but just deemed highly likely by the investigators. For one the FBI et al never had access to the DNC computers to do an analysis. I also believe its possible that the Russian indictments were valid. However none went anywhere and they just dried up and went poof. In fact one of the indictees threw Mueller into a tailspin when surprisingly they actually showed up for a court appearance; Mueller had no idea what to do.

 

Nope, you won't find a peep....he sent a clear message she was not to be touched....and Lynch followed up making it clear whatever the FBI concluded, they would follow Obama's clear message

Lisa Page said FBI discussed charging Hillary Clinton with 'gross negligence' in 2016, and DOJ told them no

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...gross-negligence-in-2016-and-doj-told-them-no

 

The Stone calls with Assange and contacts with Trump supposedly took place during the campaign in 2016. By August 2017, when the Rohrabacher visit took place, Stone was out of the picture and possibly under investigation. He would not have been the one delivering the offer to Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy.

 

Which wasn't a surprised since Stone acknowledge communications with Wikileaks
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/16/mue...idence-of-stone-wikileaks-communications.html

 

There is no victim anymore than if I told by brother steal another beer from the fridge and I'll whip your arse.

 

ALL communications including campaign.

 

The Rosenstein letter appointing Mueller specifically notes that "The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017...". You are simply wrong. Further, Mueller personally signed the indictments against the Russian hackers and the Russian companies involved. You may be sure they are still enforce and that arrests would be made if any of the indictees decide to visit any country outside of Russia with whom we have extradition treaties. The FBI has stated that physical access to the DNC server was not necessary to reach a conclusion regarding the Russian hacking. That presumably means they have other evidence. No prosecution is certain to predict a guilty verdict, however the DoJ standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which assures them of a 90%+ conviction rate makes it probable that the charges in the indictments would be confirmed at trial.

 

He acknowledged the calls, not the content of such...nor did he acknowledge discussing such with the President. It was Cohen's testimony that claimed he was in Trump's office when such a conversation took place.

 

Nah, he acknowledged he wanted to know about the emails, or at least when they attempted to release them....

Cohen is full of it. He wasn't even called as a witness in the Stone case. Those that did testify testify that Stone's communcations were never to Trump

 

Perhaps you don’t know what fisa stands for....did the campaign have foreign offices he was calling?
And of course you have no evidence of anything you’re claiming, but the claims don’t even make sense.

 

Why not? He was supposedly a close friend of Trump's for years...he acknowledged that he called Assange for information regarding the release of stolen e-mails without interest in their source? And, without telling Trump or someone else within the campaign?